1 2025:CGHC:34596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 887 of 2023 Mukesh Giri Goswami S/o Bharat Giri Goswami, Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Supela Thana, Near Kirana Shop, Krishna Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Mamta @ Bhuneshwari Goswami W/o Shri Mukesh Giri Goswami, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Guma, P.S. Urla, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Purak Giri Goswami, S/o Shri Mukesh Giri Goswami, Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta @ Bhuneshwar Goswami, R/o Village Guma, P.S. Urla, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocaet For Respondent : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel, appearing for respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:46 +0530 2 “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and to set- aside impugned judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, against the applicant, in which the learned Family Court granted a total maintenance amount of Rs. 1,600/- by order dated 09.10.2012 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 531/2010. 4. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2012, the respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,600/- to Rs. 10,000/- against the applicant. 5. After issuing notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all the averments made in the said application, stating that no maintenance amount is liable to be paid and that the application is liable to be rejected. 6. Learned Family Court, after hearing both parties and recording evidence, passed an order granting maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondents without considering the facts and material available on record, vide its order dated 24.07.2023. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was decided, and maintenance of Rs. 1,600/- was granted to the respondents by order dated 19.10.2012. 3 Despite this, the respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. with the intention of harassing the applicant, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He submits that the the learned Family Court failed to see that respondent Smt. Mamta @ Bhuneshwari Goswami, without any sufficient reason, left the house of the applicant and has been living separately. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has never treated the respondents with cruelty, has never ill-treated them, and has always tried to maintain his matrimonial life. However, the respondent consistently acted with cruelty towards the applicant and made no efforts to return and live with him. He further submits that respondent Smt. Mamta @ Bhuneshwari Goswami frequently quarreled with the applicant and his family members without any sufficient reason, left her matrimonial home, and filed an application seeking maintenance, which indicates that she is capable of maintaining herself and has filed the application only to harass the applicant. He also submits that the respondent Smt. Mamta @ Bhuneshwari Goswami, of her own will, left her matrimonial home and is also working and earning, whereas the applicant is unemployed. She earns more than the applicant and is in a better financial position than the applicant. Considering the maintenance amount awarded under the application filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 4 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek